In November of 2003 South Carolina Vet Lindy Wang "receive[d] a three-year old toy poodle named Lucy for the purposes of performing a canine ovariohysterectomy (spay). Lucy was in heat at the time of sugery . . . . "
Wang "performed surgery on the patient and applied a belly band. [Wang] informed the Complainant that the dog had lost a substantial amount of blood during the procedure, then requested and received permission for the dog to be kept overnight for observation. The patient records did not indicate the amount, route, frequency or the type of drugs used for sedation, anesthesia, or maintenance of anesthesia."
"The patient died on November 14, 2003 while under the care of [Wang]."
"Although, according to the chart, patient Lucy was faint, her gums were white and her temperature was too low to register, over four hours elapsed before her temperature was raised to near normal. There was no indication in the charts of any laboratory work, the use of any emergency drugs or of any response to the Oxyglobin that was administered on November 14, 2003. Further the chart did not indicate the amount or route of Oxyglobin administered, nor was there any indication of an assessment to rule in or rule out internal bleeding or a coagulation disorder, or of any laboratory work to differentiate either disorder. [Wang] testified that she did follow up with the patient for care and observation at approximately 9:00 am on the morning of November 14, 2003 however there was no record of the time of follow-up observation. [Wang] admitted that her recordkeeping was not good at that time."
[Commentary: So, PULEASE??? NOW that the dog is dead and a complaint has been filed, she says she checked on the dog, she just didn't write it down?
Why did Wang not raise Lucy's temperature for 4 hours?
It seems likely that not enough was done to save Lucy.]
The Board added that although Wang "was not cited for failure to use and/or have equipment available for hematocrit testing at her clinic, the Board did inform [her] that use of the same was required by S.C. Reg. 120(8)8.2(c) and (d).
The Board concluded that Wang was in violation of recordkeeping regulations in three instances, and had "engaged in unprofessional conduct or engaged in practices in connection with the practice of veterinary medicine that violated the standards of professional conduct; and that Wang's "conduct was incompetent or negligent in the practice of veterinary medicine as evidenced by her substandard record keeping and her failure to conduct an assessment to rule in or rule out internal bleeding or coagulation disorder, or to order any laboratory work to differentiate either disorder."
Wang was given a penalty of $250 (big whup!) but was also ordered to pay the $1,443.75 costs of the investigation. Quite oddly, Wang was ordered to buy a book and read a chapter on recordkeeping and then submit a "recreation of a complete surgical record for patient Lucy along with two other surgical cases."
What I find odd about that is -- why are they giving her an opportunity to create records for this dead dog so long after the fact? Records that might well end up documenting self-protective fictions "CYA" style?